If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Smoking/Anti-Smoking

123457»

Comments

  • MonCapitan2002MonCapitan2002 Avatar Captured Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (generator @ April 11 2003,01:44)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"as a side note, i found this incredibly amusing:
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Barbecues:This is a perfectly legitimite food preparation method and I don't particularly see how this is in any way relavent smoking.
    [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    ----

    umm oh yeah, you shouldn't smoke, it's bad for you.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I am glad that I amused you enough for you to point that out. laugh.gif
    LordBilbanes.png
    Please help my city grow. Estharopolis - Population | Industry | Transportation | Security | Environment | Business
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    A surgeon around Toronto announced that he refuses to operate on smokers who refuse to quit smoking, even if it would save their life. He claims it's within his-and others'-medical rights to do so. I think he's being a little too harsh. Just thought you guys would like to know. The article about it is at thestar.com.



  • generatorgenerator Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"A surgeon around Toronto announced that he refuses to operate on smokers who refuse to quit smoking, even if it would save their life. He claims it's within his-and others'-medical rights to do so. I think he's being a little too harsh. Just thought you guys would like to know. The article about it is at thestar.com.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    i think it's retarded financially for him, because either way he is getting paid, but i like the ideology of it. ?this guy must mad high on his morals.



  • MonCapitan2002MonCapitan2002 Avatar Captured Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (generator @ April 11 2003,15:43)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"A surgeon around Toronto announced that he refuses to operate on smokers who refuse to quit smoking, even if it would save their life. He claims it's within his-and others'-medical rights to do so. I think he's being a little too harsh. Just thought you guys would like to know. The article about it is at thestar.com.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    i think it's retarded financially for him, because either way he is getting paid, but i like the ideology of it. ?this guy must mad high on his morals.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I think it's wrong for the doctor to be that way. ?If he has the ability to save someone's life he should do everything possible to do so. ?I for one disagree with that ideology. ?While I feel that smoking is a disgusting and filthy habit, I think it is reprehensible to withhold medical care for a smoker unless he or she quits the habit first. ?To extort a smoker into quitting in such a fashion is morally repugnant.
    LordBilbanes.png
    Please help my city grow. Estharopolis - Population | Industry | Transportation | Security | Environment | Business
  • The AthenianThe Athenian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    I'm not so sure I agree with the doc on this one, but I think I see where he's coming from -- if the patient themselves isn't concerned for their own health, why should he be? There are enough people as it is who need medical treatment, and he can't help everbody.
    Still, this is a little strong for my taste. I would think his actions could only be justified (maybe) if he refused to treat problems that were known to be caused by smoking. And even then, he'd have to be pretty freakin' sure. Although, people willfully do all sorts of unhealthy things besides smoking. Hmm... this one's a toughie.
  • KamikazeKamikaze Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    Does anyone have the Hippocratic Oath handy to see if what this doctor is doing violates it?
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    It might. I don't care to paste something that takes 5 seconds to look up on Google, but it'd be a heavy semantics argument both ways, and rather silly besides, given the degree in which the oath has already shown itself to be mutable between its inception and the present day.
  • RDSRDS Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kamikaze @ April 10 2003,17:23)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I'm sure if you had lived in the 20s you'd have said the same thing about alcohol. But that was prohibited and look at what happened. .[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Alcohol and tobacco are a little different in these kinds of situations I think. Banning alcohol to people is more fought against I believe because alcohol was and still is a highly accepted form of social entertainment. People might think 'so they're(the government) saying I can't have fun?' where with a tobacco ban it might be more like 'hey, maybe it's just not worth it'

    Yeah people like to fight what they are told not to do, but in some cases I think people will just realize the stupididty of something.

    I agree that there could be a black market too, I just meant it probably wouldn't be the same as a drug kind.
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Alcohol and tobacco are a little different in these kinds of situations I think. Banning alcohol to people is more fought against I believe because alcohol was and still is a highly accepted form of social entertainment. People might think 'so they're(the government) saying I can't have fun?' where with a tobacco ban it might be more like 'hey, maybe it's just not worth it'[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    No, people would say the exact same thing they did then. They would say that the government has no right to regulate what they can and can't put into their bodies, and I'd have to agree with them.
  • RDSRDS Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordBrian @ April 12 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Alcohol and tobacco are a little different in these kinds of situations I think. Banning alcohol to people is more fought against I believe because alcohol was and still is a highly accepted form of social entertainment. People might think 'so they're(the government) saying I can't have fun?' where with a tobacco ban it might be more like 'hey, maybe it's just not worth it'[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    No, people would say the exact same thing they did then. They would say that the government has no right to regulate what they can and can't put into their bodies, and I'd have to agree with them.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I agree with you as well, but my idea was originally about banning the mass distribution of it by corporations or businesses-leave up to the individual to attain their smoking enjoyment(buying, growing and using tobacco plants), which isnt the government telling people what they can and cannot put in their body. It's the government regulating the distribution of a harmful substance. Which is the heavily modified tobacco products of cigarette companies.

    About the black market thing, I just think the psychology behind a tobacco market and that of a drug one are different. I don't think that there would be no black market with tobacco, just that it would be a very different market than a drug one.
    Where the drug market can be violent often, with the idea I spoke of the black market might only be people selling premade cigarettes to other individuals. You might get some growing operations, but the national rate of addiction to cigarettes would go down I think. Especially since natural grown Tobacco products aren't as addictive as the chemically modified cigarettes produced by tobacco companies.



  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    If you shut down an industry with a demand as overwhelmingly huge as the tobacco one, then all you're likely to get are a) millions of unhappy people, b) huge amounts of imported tobacco (unless you put prohibitively high tariffs on the substance, which helps lead to...) c) huge conglomerates of mafia-style black market cigarette makers, unaffiliated with the previous corporations yet still just as large -- if not larger -- in terms of profit and distribution. The government shutting down the cigarette companies is like having them tell you that you're not allowed to smoke, and it just wouldn't work in any case.
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    One last thing:

    So, it's come down to this: we simply cannot ban it without violating peoples' rights, but we can't keep it legal without violating other peoples' rights, thus, we can only regulate it, hence the current laws.

    Well, I guess that's it.
  • SinSin Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    It ends up being one of those "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations for the Government.
    Ban it, most smokers are mad.
    Don't ban it, many non-smokers are mad.
    Walken1.jpg
  • RDSRDS Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordBrian @ April 14 2003,06:21)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"If you shut down an industry with a demand as overwhelmingly huge as the tobacco one, then all you're likely to get are a) millions of unhappy people, b) huge amounts of imported tobacco (unless you put prohibitively high tariffs on the substance, which helps lead to...) c) huge conglomerates of mafia-style black market cigarette makers, unaffiliated with the previous corporations yet still just as large -- if not larger -- in terms of profit and distribution. The government shutting down the cigarette companies is like having them tell you that you're not allowed to smoke, and it just wouldn't work in any case.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I realize that what I said is not really feasable for the reasons you've stated,but I was more thinking of a way to get around the rights violation aspect.


    Both of our views are just theories though as this will likely never happen anyways. If your thoughts on a possible outcome were to come true, I think I would be really dissapointed with the human race.

    I still don't think not allowing tobacco companies to make and sell tobacco products is equatable to violating freedoms. Take gasoline and the use some people get out of it-sniffing for intoxication. The government and the public would certainly have a problem with companies mass producing gasoline for the sole purpose of personal recreational use. Stopping the sale of such a thing would not be a rights violation of the individual, but more of preventing hazourdous materials to be realeased into the public, which may cause dangers to the individual and others in society(like smoking).

    Suspening reality here for a second, let's say I lit myself ablaze and then walked down a populated area. I could say It's my body to burn as I please, but I would/could be harming the public and the environment around me.
  • KamikazeKamikaze Member Full Members
    edited June 2003
    It's time to revive this thread, as something pretty important has come out of the Surgeon General's office. He says he supports banning all tobacco products. Don't take my word for it, take his.
  • MonCapitan2002MonCapitan2002 Avatar Captured Full Members
    edited June 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kamikaze @ June 04 2003,23:29)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"It's time to revive this thread, as something pretty important has come out of the Surgeon General's office. He says he supports banning all tobacco products. Don't take my word for it, take his.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I wonder what the ramifications of his publicized comments will be. ?I think a smoking ban in the near future would be unrealistic, though. ?If the government really wants to stop people from smoking it needs to make smoking look as ?unnattractive as possible. ?I think the Truth ads are a good example of how to combat tobacco companies marketing.
    LordBilbanes.png
    Please help my city grow. Estharopolis - Population | Industry | Transportation | Security | Environment | Business
  • The AthenianThe Athenian Member Full Members
    edited June 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE""It just came out of the blue," Whitfield said after the hearing. "I've never heard anything like that from any public official -- and even from the advocates against tobacco. I was pretty disappointed and surprised, and quite shocked."

    Bush administration officials quickly distanced themselves from the comments, saying that they represented Carmona's views as a doctor rather than the position of the administration.

    "That is not the policy of the administration," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "The president supports efforts to crack down on youth smoking, and we can do more as a society to keep tobacco away from kids. That's our focus."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    What an age we live in, when these words are actually supposed to make sense.
  • TIDUSBLITZABESXTIDUSBLITZABESX Banned Banned Users
    edited June 2003
    Well they are also trying to pass a law to banned smoking in Resturants and stuff like that here in Rhode Island too. I am a non smoker and I can't be around smoke at all so It is good for me. I think smoke kills people in the long term sense so it is really not such a bad idea. Second hand smoke is ten times worse so if you breathe it in while your out eating at a resturant it kinda is unfair. Though I don't see the point of banding smokers from smoking outside. As long as smokers aren't around those who hate smoke or are allergic to it meaning they have Asthma.
  • AlludeplyAlludeply New Member Full Members
    edited February 2014
    Rico wrote: »
    IHOP isn't a restaurant? News to me...

    In any case, smoking should be completely banned from all public areas in which it is possible for someone to unwillingly inhale or otherwise be affected by cigarette smoke.
    Yes, smoking cigarette should be banned for the public place because many people don't like smoke cigarette at all. The smell of it is just unbearable. Who taking cigarettes he is not aware of it and the rest of all are sufferer.
This discussion has been closed.